Sunday night CBC aired Dieppe Uncovered based on the research of historian David O’Keefe. CBC made it appear that this was the first time that the real purpose of the Dieppe raid, communications intelligence collection, was known. The CBC concluded that Dieppe was a failure, but they may have got it wrong.

In 1976, Canadian author William Stevenson published A Man Called Intrepid, a biography of Sir William Samuel Stephenson. Stevenson’s book was a bestseller and was vetted by Stephenson. There was a TV series about Intrepid staring David Niven. In the book, Stevenson clearly states that the real purpose of the Dieppe raid was to gather intelligence and, in particular, seize Nazi radar equipment. This is surely known to Second World War historians. There are several references made to emphasize the value of the Dieppe attack for the Normandy landings in 1944.

Only Churchill, Roosevelt and a handful of intelligence chiefs were aware of the critical deception made possible by the intelligence gathered through Jubilee at Dieppe. There was no mention of this in the CBC program. Almost all the survivors thought of the Dieppe raid as a failure, but it had actually been a tremendous, if extravagant, success.

Another interesting aspect of the Dieppe Uncovered show was the connection to Ian Fleming. Stevenson’s book has 11 references to Fleming’s role in intelligence during the Second World War.

Irwin Pressman, Thornhill, Ont.

On Aug. 19, I attended the 70th anniversary commemoration of the Dieppe raid held at the Dieppe Monument in Hamilton.

I was greatly disturbed to see the French Tricolour on a pole displayed at par with the Union Jack and the Star Spangled Banner (the Maple Leaf was centred on a higher pole).

I questioned why France, officially a collaborationist country at the time of the Dieppe raid, deserved recognition as if it were a participant. France made no sacrifice during the Dieppe raid, and it is wrong to display the Tricolour alongside Canada, Great Britain and the United States, nations that did suffer terrible loss.

David Black, owner of the Black Press Group, says he wants to build an oil refinery in Kitimat. He claims coastal pollution would be less harmful if a tanker carrying refined petroleum products, rather than diluted bitumen, has an accident. I’m befuddled. Why not build the refinery in Alberta and minimize the bitumen pollution that would result from a pipeline failure? The Alberta option would also eliminate the added expense of building a recycling pipeline for the toxic distillate used to thin that gooey heavy oil. I can think of two reasons: (1) refining crude oil requires enormous quantities of water, and (2) Enbridge intends to ship bitumen out of Kitimat come hell, high water or a refinery.

When I heard the company spearheading the bitumen refinery proposal was called Kitimat Clean Ltd, I instantly thought of George Orwell’s book 1984. In that fictional tale about tyranny, the Ministry of War is called the Ministry of Peace and the Ministry of Propaganda is called the Ministry of Truth. Kitimat Clean sounds like a name dreamt up by a team of public relation consultants after they consumed too many martinis.

Robert Fulford has once again hit the nail right on the head, showing his knack for incisive and relevant commentary. I looked in vain for his view on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, another condition popularized by psychiatrists. During the First World War, the severe stress of battle led to “shell shock” in a vulnerable population; during the Second World War, the diagnosis used by a leading English neurologist was “lack of moral fibre” (he told me he regretted the need to use such an unpleasant term, but felt it was justified by the circumstances of the air war in 1940) and during the Vietnam War, PTSD became the accepted diagnosis. It was applied to soldiers who had suffered exceptional, near fatal experience, such as having a grenade burst nearby. Just as family doctors can read about and misapply psychiatric terminology, so can lawyers, who are paid to do so. Now, the diagnosis is applied, even by psychiatrists, to patients who are upset about hearing of someone else’s misforune, and financial compensation becomes the goal, something no one would have dreamt of who had suffered shell shock or LMF. This is progress.

Paul Bratty, Gibsons, B.C.

Quebec elections are same old

Some readers recently complained that daily Olympic coverage on your pages was a bore. If you are a Westerner, the same can be said of this incessant, wearisome Quebec election punditry and hand wringing. It seems to have escaped our colleagues in the distant East that, while some of the faces in the National Assembly might change on Sept. 4, nothing else will. The shake-downs, extortion, whining and provocations will continue as before, no matter who forms the government. It will be the same old, same old. Paying all this attention to the campaign only encourages the nonsense we have, to our shame, conditioned ourselves to bear. Let’s just ignore this irrelevant vote for awhile and get on with some truly important discussions, like what really happened to Elvis or if Donald Trump’s hair is for real.

Is Rex Murphy serious? First he ominously claimed Barack Obama had committed the crime of the century by helping women have easier access to birth control and now he’s demonstrably declaring Joe Biden’s poorly chosen “chains” analogy is on par with him walking out wearing a white, pointed hat. I hope his normally sensible ideas return soon.

Judy Haiven and Yakov Rabkin may be Jews, but they are very poor historians. The West Bank and Gaza are not “illegally occupied” by Israel. The territory of Gaza is currently occupied by none other than Hamas. The status of these lands was established at the San Remo conference of 1920 and was reaffirmed by the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations. According to international law, these areas were part of a mandate entrusted to Great Britain to be developed as the reborn Jewish homeland. This status has never been revoked, even by the 1947 partition plan, despire being rejected by Arab populations.

The Six Day War was not “initiated by Israel.” In May 1967, Gamal Nasser, the Egyptian dictator, blocked the Strait of Tiran. He ordered the UN peace-keeping force out of the Sinai peninsula and publicly announced his intention to annihilate the Jewish state. The Egyptian and Syrian armies mobilized for war.

At that time, Trans-Jordan was illegally occupying the West Bank after taking part in the initial failed attempt to destroy Israel in 1948. Jordan then initiated hostilities by shelling western Jerusalem. Tiny Israel was threatened with liquidation, so it struck quickly and, in the end, gained control over Judea and Samaria, which it still holds.

It is a matter of fact that the just title to this land belongs to the Jewish state.

Dr. Stephen Starr, Victoria.

The arguments of the United Church boycotters and their Jewish sycophants are factually wrong and morally reprehensible. The injustices occurring in the West Bank and Gaza are mainly perpetrated by a corrupt, violent and totalitarian Palestinian leadership. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, not because it wants to, but because it risks national suicide if it relinquishes it. The Arabs have always used territory returned to them — Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank and now Sinai — to re-ignite their 100-year war against the Jews. Numerous attempts to trade land for peace have failed, not because of Israeli intransigence, but because Arab leaders will never sign a peace treaty with Israel, will never recognize Israel and will not tolerate the existence of Jews in the Middle East. Fortunately, the United Church is irrelevant; it has no influence on Canadian opinions or policies. But the broader boycott movement is much more sinister, because it supports the violent destruction of the Jewish state. Jews, Christians and Muslims who care about world peace must do everything we can to resist the boycotters.

Dr. Meldon Kahan, Toronto, Ont.

The United Church claims that its criticism and boycott of Israel is to bring peace between the Jews and Palestinians. It makes no sense to me because there are at least two sides in this conflict. If you look around the Middle East you will realize that it is against the law for a Jew to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, Libya and Pakistan. In most other Arab countries there are virtually no Jews at all, a few hundred at most.

They have been purged and persecuted for the simple crime of being a Jew. The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas has frequently called for the extermination of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of all the Jews. That is over five million Jews, a similar number to those murdered by the Nazis.

Why does the United Church remain silent on these calls for mass murder? Hamas has already ethnically cleansed all Jews from Gaza. The Palestinian Authority and the United Church want all Jews ethnically cleansed from the West Bank. Why? Will the United Church please explain why they endorse the removal of all Jews from the West Bank, and why they remain silent over the fact that Jews are disbarred from many predominantly Muslim countries. The silence is deafening.

It’s not the peacock that should be locked up — it’s the child’s mother. For the mother to allow her two-year-old child get up close and personal with a wild animal (for that is what a peacock is) while eating borders on child neglect. I just hope she has learned a lesson from this.

Mr. Black, his wife and a number of workers at his beck and call with unlimited resources rescued cold, dirty but otherwise healthy kittens. A heartwarming story. A self-professed religious man, Mr. Black claims to not understand the mind of a doctor who would help a young woman to terminate a dangerous or incestuous pregnancy, nor of a hunter whose arrow is the only means of feeding his or her family. Nor does he understand the mind of a terminally ill patient who would rather not experience the last few weeks or days of their life of unbearable pain and suffering. Would that we all had the ear of high level politicians, hope for our future, large resources and relatively good health. We would not need our constitution which allows us, through the courts, to fight for the ear of Parliament to not interfere with our right to choose our own destiny in grievous circumstances.

Richard Johnson must be one of the most gifted illustrators of war and humanity that I can remember in this century, and his diary is both heart breaking and so heart lifting, it boggles the mind. He combines the beauty and horror of war, emotionally, graphically and beautifully. I hope he comes back alive from his present assignment in Afghanistan because he has a lot more stories to tell. His letters to his wife and kids may never be opened but that would be a good sign that he may still be alive and a hope that his diary will go on forever so his family will see him home safely and ready to go at it again. God bless you Richard, you’re beautiful inside and out.

What a story. To start, Ecuador is giving asylum to Julian Assange for the fear of persecution in Sweden. What is next? Somalia giving asylum to a person fearing persecution in Canada?

Amnesty International reported on Ecuador in 2011 that “spurious criminal charges were brought against human rights defenders, including indigenous leaders. Human rights violations committed by security forces remained unresolved. Women living in poverty continued to lack access to good quality and culturally appropriate health services.” Furthermore: “Charges of sabotage and terrorism were brought against human rights defenders, including indigenous leaders, in an attempt to silence their opposition to government policies.”

So now, Assange, the “champion of democracy and freedom of expression,” who is backed by Vladimir Putin and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasralla, will be able to discuss the advantages of freedom of expression with the president of Ecuador Rafael Correa, well known for cracking down on journalists who do not comply with his treatment of of human rights activists. Why is everybody taking it so seriously?

In the wake of a Grammy Awards ceremony that disappointed many, from Kanye West to the masses on Twitter lamenting the state of pop music, a historical perspective is key. Few are better poised to offer one than Andy Kim.